## Facts

- Andrew J. Hall and Christine Hall owned and lived at 750 Harbor Road in Fairfield, Connecticut, within the town’s historic district.
- The Halls placed an outdoor sculpture on their front lawn, positioned between their house and a picket fence that fronted Harbor Road, making it visible from the street.
- The sculpture consisted of 17 wavy sections made of concrete and steel rebar.
- As installed, the sculpture was approximately 80 feet long and four feet wide, with a maximum height of about four feet, and weighed many tons.
- The sections varied in length and overlapped, forming a relatively straight line.
- The sculpture was not attached to the property by bolts, anchors, or other mechanical fasteners.
- To create a base, the Halls excavated an approximately 80-foot-long, two-foot-deep trench in the lawn and filled it with gravel and stone.
- The sculpture was disassembled, transported to the property on five flatbed trucks, and reassembled on the gravel-and-stone base by crane over a two-day period.
- The Fairfield Historic District Commission filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a determination that it had authority to decide whether placement of the sculpture was permitted under the historic-district scheme.
- The commission and the Halls filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the sculpture constituted a “structure” under Connecticut’s historic-district enabling statute, including whether it was “affixed to the land” even though it was not mechanically fastened.
2. Whether, if the sculpture was a regulated structure or exterior feature, the Fairfield Historic District Commission had authority to require the Halls to seek historic-district approval (a certificate of appropriateness) for its placement.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the Fairfield Historic District Commission and denied the Halls’ motion.
- The court determined that the sculpture fell within the statute’s concept of a regulated “structure” because it was effectively affixed to the land.
- The court concluded that mechanical attachment was not required where the object’s size, weight, site preparation, and method of installation showed a fixed, installed feature rather than a readily movable item.
- The court declared that the commission had authority to require the Halls to submit the sculpture for the commission’s review under the historic-district approval process.

## Legal Principles

- Connecticut’s historic-district statute authorizes commissions to regulate certain exterior changes within a historic district, including regulated “structures” and other exterior features subject to the statutory definitions.
- An object may be treated as “affixed to the land” based on practical and physical realities—such as extensive site work, a prepared base, the object’s mass, and the effort required to remove and relocate it—not only by bolts or similar fasteners.
- In applying the historic-district statute, courts consider the statute’s purpose of protecting the district’s exterior appearance as seen from public ways.
- Where the material facts about the object and its installation are undisputed, the question of statutory coverage and commission authority may be resolved on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

In *Fairfield Historic District Commission v. Hall*, the Connecticut Superior Court concluded that the Halls’ large, multi-section concrete-and-rebar sculpture installed on a prepared gravel-and-stone base in their front lawn functioned as a structure affixed to the land, so the Fairfield Historic District Commission had authority to require historic-district review and approval for its placement.


Fairfield Historic District Commission v. Hall, No. X08CV030201280S (2005)